On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 18:35 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 09:13:41AM +0800, Zhu Yi wrote: > > On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 19:50 +0800, Gábor Stefanik wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Julia Lawall<julia@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > The files ieee80211_tx.c in the directories > > > > drivers/staging/rtl8192su/ieee80211 and > > > drivers/staging/rtl8192e/ieee80211 > > > > both contain the following code in the function > > > > ieee80211_query_protectionmode: > > > > > > > > if (ieee->mode == IW_MODE_MASTER) > > > > goto NO_PROTECTION; > > > > > > > > Elsewhere in these files when there is a comparison against an > > > IW_MODE > > > > value, the field that is compared is iw_mode. Should that be the > > > case > > > > here as well? > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > julia > > > > > > I don't know; rtl8192su & rtl8192e use a modified version of the > > > libipw stack, rather than the mac80211 stack found behind non-staging > > > drivers. > > > > This is clearly a bug. The question is: who is maintaining this driver > > and why it doesn't use/extend ieee80211/libipw? > > I maintain it, and I am working to convert it to use the existing > ieee80211 stack that is in the kernel. Remember, these are drivers in > the staging tree, they are usually "crap" :) When you say "ieee80211" you mean mac80211, right? Dan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
